On Thu, 2003-07-31 at 10:43, Mike Martin wrote:
> --- Elliot Lee <sopwith redhat com> wrote: > On Wed, 30 Jul 2003,
> Mike Martin wrote:
> >
> > > This causes problems with packages that dont compile with 3.3
> >
> > Those packages need to be fixed.
> >
>
> yes - I know these packages should be fixed.
>
> BUT - it does put the user trying to compile software in a
> frustrating position especially when it relates to fairly important
> packages like gstreamer.
Then it's the responsibility of the package maintainers to fix the
software, or even it's the freedom of the user to debug the package and
submit a fix for it. Or would you rather maintain two complete
toolchains only not to have to fix some packages? Because it'd work like
that: package A doesn't compile with gcc-3.3, so users compile it with
3.2.x which in turn leads to package A not getting fixed, ...
I know it can be frustrating for the end user/builder, even more so if
package maintainers don't cooperate (e.g. mplayer vs. gcc-2.96), but I
would want more convincing reasons for maintaining a second toolchain
(not that I'm directly involved).
Nils
--
Nils Philippsen / Red Hat / nphilipp redhat com
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- B. Franklin, 1759
PGP fingerprint: C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F 656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part